Parshios Behar & Bechukosai
Eye Want Yours
"But the seventh year shall be a complete rest of the land..."(25:4)
The Midrash introduces this week's parsha by noting that Eisav was a "rah
ayin" - "possessor of bad eye". This attribute, continues the Midrash is
also exhibited by a person who fails to observe the laws of shemitah, i.e.
abstaining from working the land on the seventh year and allowing others to
partake from its produce. Why is Eisav's pursuit of wealth described as
possessing an "ayin rah"? If a "rah ayin" indicates that a person exhibits
an unquenchable thirst for material possessions to the extent the he is
willing to violate the precepts, examples can be shown involving other
precepts which require sustaining a financial loss. Why is a violator of the
laws of shemitah singled out as possessing a "rah ayin"?
The Torah promises that a person who adheres to the laws of shemitah will be
blessed with an abundance of food for the sixth, seventh and eighth
years. Yet Ramban reveals that one of the primary reasons for the
Babylonian exile was Bnei Yisroel's failure to observe shemitah; the seventy
years of exile correspond to the seventy shemitos which were not
observed. With Hashem's guarantee that they would not go hungry, why did
Bnei Yisroel not observe the laws of shemitah?
Rashi, in Parshas Vayishlach, contrasts Yaakov's manner of relating to his
possessions to that of Eisav's. Yaakov states "yeish li kol" - "I have all
that I need", while Eisav proclaims "yeish li rav" - "I have much more than
I need". Generally, we attribute a person's greed to his insatiable
appetite. Concerning Eisav , this explanation does not suffice for he admits
that he has more than he would ever need. What could be the motivating
factor that drives him to continue amassing more wealth?
Eisav is not driven by an intrinsic desire to satisfy his needs. His desire
is fueled by his need to ensure that no one else will posses this wealth.
Although he is aware that he has no personal need for this wealth, he
attempts to obtain it only in order to prevent another from having it. This
is the characteristic that the Midrash defines as a "rah ayin", the
inability to "fargin" another person his good fortune. Not only does Eisav
not appreciate the good fortune of others, but he does whatever he can to
prevent others from having this good fortune.
The inability to observe the laws of shemitah is a result of possessing a
"rah ayin". Even with Hashem's guarantee to supply us with all our needs, we
could not tolerate opening our fields so that others could benefit from
them. Although the portion that they would have consumed would not have
diminished what we needed for our own well-being, the mere thought of others
possessing that which could be ours prevented us from observing the shemitah
for the entire duration of the first Temple.
3.26:17, See Shabbos 33a
4.33:11 (see Rashi)
A One-Sided Affair
"I will remember My covenant with Yaakov and also My covenant with
Yitzchak, and also My covenant with Avraham will I remember..." (26:42)
At the conclusion of the "tochacha" - the admonition which records the
devastating punishments that Bnei Yisroel will receive for abandoning the
covenant with Hashem, the Torah relates that Hashem will ultimately remember
His covenant made with the Patriarchs and in their merit Bnei Yisroel will
Rashi cites a Midrash that questions why the word "zachor" - "remember" is
juxtaposed to the Patriarch Avraham, "es brisi Avraham ezkor", and to the
Patriarch Yaakov, "vezocharti es brisi Yaakov", yet there is no mention of
the word "zachor" in connection with the Patriarch Yitzchak?
The Ba'al Haturim addresses the same issue and suggests that Hashem
particularly remembers the merits of Avraham and Yaakov, for they observed
the mitzvos both in Eretz Yisroel and outside of the land of Israel, whereas
Yitzchak only observed the mitzvos in Eretz Yisroel. Therefore, continues
the Ba'al Haturim, both Avraham and Yaakov are referred to by Hashem as
"avadi" - "My servants", while this appellation is not conferred upon
Rashi in Parshas Toldos cites the Midrash which states that Yitzchak was not
allowed to leave Eretz Yisroel because he was an "olah temima" - "perfect
elevation offering", having been offered as a sacrifice by his father. Due
to his heightened level of sanctity, he was instructed to remain in the Holy
Land. How could Avraham and Yaakov, who served Hashem in a land of lesser
sanctity, possess greater merits than Yaakov whose relationship with Hashem
was on a higher plane?
In Parshas Eikev, Rashi comments that the purpose of wearing tefillin and
placing mezuzos on our doorposts outside of Eretz Yisroel is so that we will
be well versed in the observance of these mitzvos upon our return to the
Land. The Ramban expands this notion to include all mitzvos, implying
that the purpose of observing mitzvos outside of Eretz Yisroel is solely to
prevent us from forgetting how to perform them, for only in Eretz Yisroel
are we truly bound by their performance. The Ramban requires further
elaboration, for it appears as if there is no intrinsic value in performing
mitzvos outside of Eretz Yisroel.
The Midrash records an analogy which offers insight into the Ramban's words.
A king who is angered by his wife sends her back to her father's home. While
there, her father instructs her to continue wearing her regal clothing and
cosmetics. The Ksav Vekaboleh explains that the message of the Midrash is
that aside from causing her to remember the required procedure for when she
will eventually be summoned back to the palace, continuing to wear her royal
garb serves an additional purpose; by maintaining her own elevated status,
she affords honor to her estranged husband. Similarly, by performing the
mitzvos outside of Eretz Yisroel, we show our desire to continue our
relationship with Hashem, and in doing so, we bring Him honor. Mitzvos
actualize our relationship with Hashem. In Eretz Yisroel, where Hashem's
presence is discernable, the reality of the relationship affords Bnei
Yisroel a sense of reciprocity for their actions. We feel closer to Hashem
as we perform more mitzvos and being able to sense this closeness gives us
fulfillment. Outside of Eretz Yisroel there is no immediate sense of
reciprocity, for Hashem's presence is concealed. All mitzva observance is
performed as a one-sided relationship. The only motivation for continuing to
observe is the desire to obey the word of Hashem, for the fulfillment which
is attained through a reciprocal relationship is lacking.
Yitzchak reached great levels of sanctity and maintained a flawless
relationship with his Creator, yet he was not faced with the challenge of
serving a Creator under circumstances where there was no perceived
relationship. Avraham and Yaakov excelled in their observance even when the
relationship appeared completely one-sided. Therefore, their merits have a
greater impact upon their descendants. It is this notion that the Ba'al
Haturim is alluding to when he states that only Avraham and Yaakov are
referred to as slaves, for a slave does his master's bidding irrespective of
an existing relationship. Yitzchak may be compared to a son following the
wishes of his father; whereas it is a relationship of a higher level, it is
not as commendable as a person who accepts to be a slave without receiving
the fulfillment of a reciprocal relationship.